Cumbrian Coast Loco Hauled Stock

[hairyhandedfool]

....however I've never known a car where from the inside the only way to open a car door is to lower the window and reach out with your hand.

Can't say I've been in a car where the door opens automatically when you push a button either (nevermind one where all the doors are locked until a stranger turns a key and pushes a different button).

 

[Minilad]

Can you not just leave the train via a door that someone else has already opened. Save the stress on your poor wrists

 

[D6975]

Now of course I can't vouch for the cars that you might have owned / driven however I've never known a car where from the inside the only way to open a car door is to lower the window and reach out with your hand.

Every car my ex and I ever owned had back doors that couldn't be opened from the inside.
You could switch it off via a slider on the door edge if you wanted to, so that the doors could be opened from the inside.
Very useful for keeping the kids from trying to get out when you don't want them to.

 

[anme]

This is a very strange discussion. I don't think anyone is arguing that manual doors are better than powered doors, or even that manual doors are a good thing at all. Clearly powered doors are better and should be specified on all new trains, and maybe even fitted to older trains when possible.

The question is whether manual doors are so bad that they would *really* cause anyone to cancel or replan a journey. That's the thing I find hard to believe.

PS I commuted on trains with manual doors for several years.

 

[33056]

Personally, I have no problem with the doors on the Cumbrian Coast loco hauled sets. They are a lot easier to open from the inside with the vertical bars than ones with horizontal bars such as those previously fitted to charter sets and older units used on the North London Line (going back a bit there!) as your shoulder fits through the gap more easily.

 

[yorksrob]

Have you ever actually used the internal door handles on old MK1 EMU's they were not particularly easy to use, I gather that for internal door handles that would be acceptable post 2020 the current central locking system isn't regarded as good enough and will require substancial mods which wont be cheap, and are probably not worthwhile for the length of the DRS contract especially as they are not mandatory during the period of the contract.

I've used those types of door handles on VEP's and other Southern non-express units frequently for around twenty years. They were necessarily quite stiff so as not to come open willy-nilly, but were actually very simple to use.

As it happens, Hastings Diesels have recently fitted these internal handles to its thumper (complete with CDL - being express stock they didn't originally have them) so it wouldn't surprise me if something similar could be fitted to the Mk2's.

 

[bb21]

Have you ever been a regular rail commuter?, I was for 2 periods in the late eighties and early nineties, in the end I made other arrangements because the service was so poor it was either that or lose my Job.

Doesn't matter if its the loco or coaching stock at fault, if overall its less reliable than the DMU's on the route its not very acceptable, although newer Loco's might at least help the overall reliability, there isn't much choice in terms of using ancient coaching stock.

Have you ever actually used the internal door handles on old MK1 EMU's they were not particularly easy to use, I gather that for internal door handles that would be acceptable post 2020 the current central locking system isn't regarded as good enough and will require substancial mods which wont be cheap, and are probably not worthwhile for the length of the DRS contract especially as they are not mandatory during the period of the contract.

I can't really be bothered to quote all your other posts. Seeing that the loco-hauled trains are the worst thing that could have happened to the Cumbrian Coast communities the way you are making them out to be, how about let's hear your clever solutions for the chronic unit shortages then?

I am sure if Northern had other ways, they would have preferred a unit over a loco-hauled rake any day.

Oh btw, what you have heard seem to be directly at odds with what I have heard from the locals, and I have spoken to quite a lot of them. Just goes to show that a small sample of people is not always very representative of the local community.

 

[crehld]

Oh btw, what you have heard seem to be directly at odds with what I have heard from the locals, and I have spoken to quite a lot of them. Just goes to show that a small sample of people is not always very representative of the local community.

Indeed, I'd be very interested to see the results of some empirical analysis.

 

[route:oxford]

Can't say I've been in a car where the door opens automatically when you push a button either (nevermind one where all the doors are locked until a stranger turns a key and pushes a different button).

Have you ever been in a taxi?

The taxi firm I use regularly has Mercedes vehicles with power doors.

 

[47802]

I can't really be bothered to quote all your other posts. Seeing that the loco-hauled trains are the worst thing that could have happened to the Cumbrian Coast communities the way you are making them out to be, how about let's hear your clever solutions for the chronic unit shortages then?

I am sure if Northern had other ways, they would have preferred a unit over a loco-hauled rake any day.

Oh btw, what you have heard seem to be directly at odds with what I have heard from the locals, and I have spoken to quite a lot of them. Just goes to show that a small sample of people is not always very representative of the local community.

I'm not saying they are the worst thing that could happen to the Cumbrian Coast, however if I go for a trip on it next weekend yes great if the 37 fails ok its no big deal for me, but if I'm a regular commuter I want a reliable service not a preserved railway.

Well the comments I've heard haven't exactly been positive, or some reported comments on WNXX either. As for alternatives well there's been suggestions such a Southport-Manchester 67 peak only diagram as fix for the loss of the remaining 170's that's the sort of fix that should have happened here, with newer Loco's and kept to a minimum, but I suspect the DFT were blinded by DRS desire to run Loco Hauled services to Sellafield for probably a very good price.

 

[Bungle965]

Well the comments I've heard haven't exactly been positive, or some reported comments on WNXX either. As for alternatives well there's been suggestions such a Southport-Manchester 67 peak only diagram as fix for the loss of the remaining 170's that's the sort of fix that should have happened here, with newer Loco's and kept to a minimum, but I suspect the DFT were blinded by DRS desire to run Loco Hauled services to Sellafield for probably a very good price.

That really is not what should have happened, 67s are slow (Just look at either the Chiltern or the Scotrail Fifle Circle diagram who have had the 67s replaced with 68s) Just a few other reasons why Northern could have chosen not to go ahead.
1) Operational Inconvenience
2) Platform Lengths (Appely Bridge for example) among other reasons.
I also believe that DRS took on the contact not because they were `blinded` as you put it but because they are near depots which DRS own where should anything go wrong they should in theory be able to help out quicker than a different company would.
What are the other company`s round there.... oh yes WCRC who right now can not be trusted to run a charter train without having an urge to press the TPWS override switch, or not pull of from a platform when they have not been given the right away! DRS really was the only company that could run it.
Sam

 

[47802]

That really is not what should have happened, 67s are slow (Just look at either the Chiltern or the Scotrail Fifle Circle diagram who have had the 67s replaced with 68s) Just a few other reasons why Northern could have chosen not to go ahead.
1) Operational Inconvenience
2) Platform Lengths (Appely Bridge for example) among other reasons.
I also believe that DRS took on the contact not because they were `blinded` as you put it but because they are near depots which DRS own where should anything go wrong they should in theory be able to help out quicker than a different company would.
What are the other company`s round there.... oh yes WCRC who right now can not be trusted to run a charter train without having an urge to press the TPWS override switch, or not pull of from a platform when they have not been given the right away! DRS really was the only company that could run it.
Sam

Yes possibly Chiltern got a better deal with the 68's and allegedly they have better fuel economy and possibly better reliability however to suggest they are slow what utter tosh along with the rest of the comments.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Yes possibly Chiltern got a better deal with the 68's and allegedly they have better fuel economy and possibly better reliability however to suggest they are slow what utter tosh along with the rest of the comments.

One of the Chiltern operated 68's allegedly failed at Kidderminster yesterday, but no doubt that would be fine because it's a new train, woebetide any 37 failing in Cumbria as there would likely be umpteen posts about how old and useless they are, also just to add I think you misunderstood the OP's suggestion about 68's being slow, what was actually being implied was that the 67 was slow off the mark, and perhaps even slower than a 37 when employed on duties featuring numerous station stops such as the Cumbrian Coast line or Manchester-Southport, perhaps a driver could enlighten us?

 

[47802]

One of the Chiltern operated 68's allegedly failed at Kidderminster yesterday, but no doubt that would be fine because it's a new train, woebetide any 37 failing in Cumbria as there would likely be umpteen posts about how old and useless they are, also just to add I think you misunderstood the OP's suggestion about 68's being slow, what was actually being implied was that the 67 was slow off the mark, and perhaps even slower than a 37 when employed on duties featuring numerous station stops such as the Cumbrian Coast line or Manchester-Southport, perhaps a driver could enlighten us?

My ref was meant to refer to the 67's being slow, the 67's have worked a number of loco hauled diagrams in the past including replacing 57's on the Taunton shuttle due to alleged poor reliability on the 57's and its the first time I've seen any reference to the 67's being slow and as reason for replacing them with 68's, and of course Arriva replaced 57's with 67's.

No trains are perfect and yes even new ones will fail but the reason I drive a 2 year car instead of a 20 year old one because its likely to be more reliable and easier to fix and get parts for when it does break down.

But anyway Chiltern and Scotrail have replaced 17 year old Loco's with new ones and your telling me 68's are better than 67's, well OK fine that seems to be an argument for using new Loco's, but mean while on Northern its still OK to use 50 year old Loco's on an intensive start stop daily diagrams, and the main justification for it on here is 67 are not very good and enthusiasts like to travel on 37's so that's OK then and maybe Arriva should replace their 67 trains with 37's as well then.

 

[CosherB]

But anyway Chiltern and Scotrail have replaced 17 year old Loco's with new ones and your telling me 68's are better than 67's, well OK fine, but mean while on Northern its still OK to use 50 year old Loco's on an intensive start stop daily diagrams, and the main justification for it on here is 67 are not very good and enthusiasts like to travel on 37's so that's OK then and maybe Arriva should replace their 67 trains with 37's as well then.

So what's your plan as an immediate and viable alternative for the Cumbrian?

 

[47802]

So what's your plan as an immediate and viable alternative for the Cumbrian?

Go back to units look to for a peak time only Northern diagram that can go to Loco Hauled, if that's not possible make do with the existing unit fleet after all a number of units were released with North West electrification, and had the DFT not effectively promised that all those released units could be used for additional capacity I think that's what would have happened anyway, and as its the start of the new franchise you don't really need to keep that promise, alternatively kick it back to TPE for them to sort out after all its the loss of their units that caused this problem not Northern.

There seems to be plenty of rumours about TPE Loco haulage to deal with the issue of the remaining 170's, would they put 37's or even 47's on TPE trains somehow I doubt it.

 

[bb21]

67s could barely keep to 37 timings after replacing them on sleeper duties, so there is some truth in that.

Availability of parts depends on a number of issues, of which age is just one. The large pool of existing 37s provides some backup.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Have you ever been in a taxi?

The taxi firm I use regularly has Mercedes vehicles with power doors.

Quite a few, but none of the local taxi firms use Mercs. Infact the only time I can claim to have been in a Merc taxi was in Belgium and I still had to pull a lever to open the door.

 

[47802]

67s could barely keep to 37 timings after replacing them on sleeper duties, so there is some truth in that.

Availability of parts depends on a number of issues, of which age is just one. The large pool of existing 37s provides some backup.

Isn't that mainly due to the high axle load on 67's with axle load speed restrictions on the West Highland line rather than outright performance of the Locomotives?

Anyway I've said enough on this my opinion of course isn't important at the end of the day and with Rail Enthusiasts hat I think its great I may be having a trip this weekend, but if I were a commuter on that route I would taking my Car.

No doubt the 37's will be here for a while unless the new franchisee gets fed with performance and reliability.

 

[yorksrob]

Go back to units look to for a peak time only Northern diagram that can go to Loco Hauled, if that's not possible make do with the existing unit fleet after all a number of units were released with North West electrification, and had the DFT not effectively promised that all those released units could be used for additional capacity I think that's what would have happened anyway, and as its the start of the new franchise you don't really need to keep that promise, alternatively kick it back to TPE for them to sort out after all its the loss of their units that caused this problem not Northern.

There seems to be plenty of rumours about TPE Loco haulage to deal with the issue of the remaining 170's, would they put 37's or even 47's on TPE trains somehow I doubt it.

If you've actually visited the area since the timetable change, you'll see that the line is sans several 156's. The idea of 'making do with existing units' is therefore a nonsense as the 'existing' units aren't there.

Secondly, if you did manage to source newer more reliable loco's, what possible benefit would be gained from using such a resource on a single diagram, ignoring overcrowding at other times whilst keeping an expensive resource in the siding for no discernible reason.

 

[47802]

If you've actually visited the area since the timetable change, you'll see that the line is sans several 156's. The idea of 'making do with existing units' is therefore a nonsense as the 'existing' units aren't there.

Secondly, if you did manage to source newer more reliable loco's, what possible benefit would be gained from using such a resource on a single diagram, ignoring overcrowding at other times whilst keeping an expensive resource in the siding for no discernible reason.

You mean like Scotrail do seems to work for them, and if course the 156's are not there because they are being used for TPE

 

[yorksrob]

You mean like Scotrail do seems to work for them, and if course the 156's are not there because they are being used for TPE

Northern has had a shortage of DMU's to start off with, so I'm not sure what other TOC's doing has to do with the price of fish.

In your fantasy world they may be able to run the Cumbrian Coast with a handful of 153's and a Pacer, but in the real world replacement trains were needed to run the full service.

 

[randyrippley]

67s could barely keep to 37 timings after replacing them on sleeper duties, so there is some truth in that.

Availability of parts depends on a number of issues, of which age is just one. The large pool of existing 37s provides some backup.

for interest, is that a single 37 or a pair you're comparing with the 67?

 

[47802]

Northern has had a shortage of DMU's to start off with, so I'm not sure what other TOC's doing has to do with the price of fish.

In your fantasy world they may be able to run the Cumbrian Coast with a handful of 153's and a Pacer, but in the real world replacement trains were needed to run the full service.

Nothing fantasy about it, and yes most TOC's have a shortage of stock which they just have to live with until more stock is available, there's been a general reluctance of Regional TOC's to run Loco Hauled trains over years because they are expensive to run and not particularly reliable with 1st gen Diesels, hence they frequently only run them when the DFT contributes and those that do run now use more Modern traction except for Northern and the push pull Anglia set it would seem.

402 failed this morning on the 08-42 ex Carlisle obviously a day or 2 on the coast a bit too much for it

 

[sprinterguy]

for interest, is that a single 37 or a pair you're comparing with the 67?

That was a single 37, assuming that bb21 is referring to the West Highland sleeper (which of course remained 37 hauled until replacement by 67s, unlike the other two portions of the Highland sleeper), but as 47802 says the difference in timings is due to the fact that the 67s are subject to strict speed restrictions over a number of structures on the WHL due to their high axle load, and not due (as far as I know) to their performance.

 

[fowler9]

If I can risk going back to doors Northern Rail just gave me two free days travel anywhere on their network because the doors on a 142 wouldn't open and I got carried on to South Parkway leaving me with a two mile walk home. I intend to use at least one of those vouchers on the LHCS on the Cumbrian coast. Ha ha.

 

[yorksrob]

Nothing fantasy about it, and yes most TOC's have a shortage of stock which they just have to live with until more stock is available

Great, they should take the required units off of your local line then

 

[bb21]

That was a single 37, assuming that bb21 is referring to the West Highland sleeper (which of course remained 37 hauled until replacement by 67s, unlike the other two portions of the Highland sleeper), but as 47802 says the difference in timings is due to the fact that the 67s are subject to strict speed restrictions over a number of structures on the WHL due to their high axle load, and not due (as far as I know) to their performance.

That's correct. My point was that they can be faster in certain circumstances so there was some truth in the claim that 67s can be slow, but it would be incorrect to say that it is simply slow.

I still don't see the big issue with the 37s on the Cumbrian Coast. The 37s obviously fail every now and then, but anyone seeing the crush load at Sellafield at shift changeover times would understand the importance of having this additional capacity available. They are also performing much better now timing-wise without the dead loco at the back, and passengers are gradually getting used to the door mechanism.

What enthusiasts think is pretty irrelevant. I hardly think the additional income generated by enthusiasts making a few more journeys would cover the additional cost of hiring the two loco-hauled rakes.

Obviously Northern cannot please everyone. Whatever they do, there will always be voices of disapproval. I am happy that the feedback I have heard from the many I have spoken to on that route is overwhelmingly positive. I think they have got it broadly right.

 

[70014IronDuke]

.......
I still don't see the big issue with the 37s on the Cumbrian Coast. The 37s obviously fail every now and then, but anyone seeing the crush load at Sellafield at shift changeover times would understand the importance of having this additional capacity available. They are also performing much better now timing-wise without the dead loco at the back, and passengers are gradually getting used to the door mechanism.
....

Bit of a disaster today with the first off Carlisle.

2C32 - which I assume is an essential train for workers travelling to Sellafield - 117 late into Barrow.


http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y13877/2016/08/29/advanced

EDIT - and Preston legged understandably caped.

Unfortunately, not the first time this month one of the key morning trains has gone missing.

 

[70014IronDuke]

first train north off Barrow today totally caped.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y13082/2016/11/10/advanced

i've been trying to keep an eye on the performance of these Cl 37 LHCS, and i must say, I do wonder if they are a blessing or curse.

Much as I would like to see them as a stop-gap success, it seems hardly a week goes by without at least one of the first workings off Barrow or Carlisle failing completely or arriving well beyond RT.

These trains are, presumably, crucial for both Sellafield workers and commuters to Carlisle, Barrow and even Ulverston/Preston, and regular failures must be very damaging to rail's attractiveness.

Plus, given the awfully tight turnround time in Carlisle for the first northbound working, there is an inevitable knock on effect on the first full south bound working in what you might call 'leisure time' - the 08.42 ex-Carlisle.

When they operate to time, I'm sure the locals appreciate the ambience of the Mk IIs, but given the regular failures, I wonder what feeling on the ground is like after 18 months or so of operation?